21.12.2012 Views

Production Practices and Quality Assessment of Food Crops. Vol. 1

Production Practices and Quality Assessment of Food Crops. Vol. 1

Production Practices and Quality Assessment of Food Crops. Vol. 1

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Most agricultural chemicals have been developed <strong>and</strong> rates determined using<br />

high-volume spraying techniques. In low volume spraying, maintenance <strong>of</strong> the<br />

dosage rate is important to avoid loss <strong>of</strong> efficacy <strong>of</strong> the chemical. McArtney <strong>and</strong><br />

Hughes (1992) discuss the importance <strong>of</strong> maintaining a constant product rate per<br />

hectare while reducing water volumes. This means that tank concentrations are<br />

increased which could increase the risk <strong>of</strong> phytotoxicity through excess deposition<br />

<strong>of</strong> spray, or failure <strong>of</strong> the spray through insufficient spray deposited.<br />

With the advent <strong>of</strong> CDA machines in the 1970’s which were able to produce<br />

droplets within the 60–100 µm range, there was a marked reduction in both spray<br />

drift <strong>and</strong> the loss associated with large droplets. Several machines had the capability<br />

<strong>of</strong> conforming closely to this range <strong>and</strong> utilised spinning discs or rotary<br />

cages to produce a consistent range <strong>of</strong> droplets. Further, droplet size could be<br />

adjusted by altering flow rates <strong>and</strong> pressure. This allowed the alteration <strong>of</strong> spray<br />

application when needed, for instance, under warm spraying conditions in some<br />

countries it is advisable to increase droplet mean diameter to allow for evaporation<br />

effects.<br />

5.3.1. Application <strong>of</strong> CDA technology<br />

Spray Technology in Perennial Tree <strong>Crops</strong> 97<br />

Work with CDA machines in Australian orchards in the 1980’s demonstrated that<br />

they were at least as biologically effective at 200 L/ha as an air-blast sprayer at 6000<br />

L/ha (Oakford et al., 1991). Further trials with both Micron <strong>and</strong> Micronair CDA<br />

machines showed that ultralow volumes as low as 25 L/ha were capable <strong>of</strong> producing<br />

results similar to high volume applications (Oakford et al., 1994a). However,<br />

spinning discs <strong>and</strong> rotary atomisers were not robust, <strong>and</strong> were subject to frequent<br />

breakdowns <strong>and</strong> damage. This combined with the almost invisible output at ultralow<br />

volumes meant orchardists were reluctant to accept this large technological change<br />

in spray application, hence uptake <strong>of</strong> ULV spraying in orchards has been slow,<br />

particularly in Australia <strong>and</strong> New Zeal<strong>and</strong> where tree size tends to be larger than<br />

in the UK.<br />

5.3.2. Application <strong>of</strong> airshear technology<br />

Airshear technology, which works on the principle <strong>of</strong> high air velocity (282–370<br />

km/hr) <strong>and</strong> low liquid pressures (68-170 kPa) has proved to be more popular, at least<br />

in Australia, than CDA technology. These machines are more robust, utilising high<br />

speed turbine fans to produce droplets in the 50–130 µm range. While not producing<br />

as concise a range <strong>of</strong> droplet sizes as the spinning disc or rotary cage atomisers,<br />

Oakford et al. (1994b, 1995) demonstrated that airshear sprayers were superior to<br />

air-blast sprayers using high pressure hydraulic nozzles. Experiments in Australia<br />

by Oakford et al. (1995) using airshear have shown that at volumes <strong>of</strong> 200 L/ha<br />

the chemical dosage rate could be reduced by 25%. Oakford et al. (1994b) reported<br />

that reducing the output volume from 200 to 100 L/ha significantly depressed the<br />

effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the airshear machine, however Oakford et al. (1995) found 100 L/ha<br />

as effective as 200 L/ha. These authors also reported a marked fall <strong>of</strong>f in<br />

performance at 800 L/ha. With higher water volumes, airshear nozzles lose their

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!